Geyi
Geyi originated as a 3rd-century Chinese Buddhist method for explaining lists of Sanskrit terms from the Buddhist canon with comparable lists from Chinese classics; but many 20th-century scholars of Buddhism misconstrued geyi "matching concepts" as a supposed method of translating Sanskrit technical terminology with Chinese Daoist vocabulary. This reputed geyi "matching concepts" or "matching meanings" definition is ubiquitous in modern reference works, including academic articles, textbooks on Buddhism, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and Web-based resources.
Victor H. Mair, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature at the University of Pennsylvania, has investigated geyi and found no historical evidence to support the translation hypothesis. Mair has discovered that geyi was a "highly ephemeral and not-very-successful attempt on the part of a small number of Chinese teachers to cope with the flood of numbered lists of categories, ideas and so forth that came to China in the wake of Buddhism". Misunderstanding of geyi, which Mair calls "pseudo-geyi," has distorted the History of Buddhism and History of Taoism; has misled countless students through "erroneous definitions and specious accounts" in otherwise generally reliable reference books; and perhaps worst of all, "has spawned an entire industry of fake philosophizing about the intellectual history of China", particularly that of the Six Dynasties period. This kind of scholarship seems to be perpetuated in the latest publications on the topic, which is apparently completely ignorant of Mair's study.
Word semantics
The Chinese word géyì is a compound of two terms. Gé 格—a phono-semantic character written with the "wood radical" indicating "lattice; pattern" and a gě 各 phonetic indicator—is defined as: "noun ① lattice; grid; squares ② case; bound morpheme standard; pattern; style; verb resist; obstruct". Yì 義—written with yáng ? "sheep" over wǒ 我 "I; my" phonetic—is defined as: bound morpheme "① justice; righteousness ② chivalry; sense of honor ③ meaning; significance ④ human ties; relationship ⑤ adopted; adoptive ⑥ artificial; false ⑦ volunteer."The common but inaccurate English translation of géyì is "matching concepts" or sometimes "matching meanings" in the imaginative scenario of early Sanskrit-Chinese "translationese". Besides the absence of historical proof, there is a lack of linguistic evidence. While Chinese yì 義 commonly translates as "meaning; concept", gé 格 never means "matching".
This Chinese character 格 has multiple pronunciations and many meanings. The Hanyu Da Cidian word dictionary 格 entry lists four different Modern Standard Chinese pronunciations, plus two special pronunciations, with a total of 42 definitions. The Hanyu Da Zidian character dictionary 格 entry lists the same six pronunciations, with a total of 33 definitions. Mair says, "Despite the plethora of definitions for this single graph, neither of these authoritative works offers a justification for rendering it as ‘matching’."
Mair compiled definitions of ge 格 from leading Modern Chinese dictionaries and semantically regrouped them as:
square/compartment/check/chequer ; lattice, grid; division; standard, pattern, rule; character, manner, style; impede, obstruct, resist, bar ; hit, beat, fight; investigate, examine; case.
Taking the gé in géyì to signify "classification; categorization", Mair explains the most of these meanings are derivable from the basic idea of a compartmentalized wooden framework in which sections are blocked off. Since not one Chinese dictionary defines gé as "matching" or "pairing", there is "no lexicographical warrant for the currently ubiquitous translation of geyi as "matching meanings". Mair concludes that "'matching' is simply an ad hoc, unsubstantiated rendering of the graph devised by modern scholars perplexed by its occurrence in the shadowy expression geyi".
Classical usages
Geyi is an uncommon term within the Chinese classics. It primarily occurs 23 times in the Buddhist canon, and many of these are repetitions. Geyi is not found in the Daozang Daoist Canon, the official Twenty-Four Histories, Zizhi Tongjian reference of Chinese historiography, Gujin Tushu Jicheng imperial encyclopedia, Siku Quanshu collection, or comprehensive digital databases of classics. Mair explains: "It would appear that, after a few fleeting mentions during the Wei-Jin period, the term geyi was almost totally obliterated from Chinese intellectual discourse and consciousness until the twentieth century.".The earliest source to mention geyi is the biography of Jin dynasty Buddhist Zhu Faya 竺法雅 or Faya, which is found Memoirs of Eminent Monks by Huijiao 慧皎. Zhu Faya lived in Hejian and Hebei and was an older contemporary of Dao An and Zhu Fatai.
Faya was a man of Hejian. He was of a staid, tolerant disposition. As a youth, he excelled at non-Buddhist studies, and when he grew up he became proficient in Buddhist doctrine. The sons of gentry families all attached themselves to him and requested that he teach them. At that time, the adherents who followed him were uniformly well-versed in secular works, but did not yet excel in Buddhist principles. Consequently, ya, with Kang Falang and others, correlated the numerations of items in the sutras with non-Buddhist writings as instances of lively explication; this was called "categorizing concepts". Thereupon, Vibhu, Tanxiang, and others also debated over the categorised concepts in order to instruct their disciples. ya's manner was unrestrained and he excelled the crux. He alternately lectured on secular works and Buddhist sutras. With Dao’an and Fatai, he often explained the doubtful points they had assembled, and together they exhausted the essentials of the sutras.
Huijiao authoritatively explains the original meaning of geyi as correlating Indian Buddhist shishu 事數 "enumerative categories of things/items, i.e., terms" with comparable material from Chinese sources. Shishu has two synonyms of fashu 法數 "categories of Buddhist concepts" and mingshu 名數 "numbered groups of Buddhist terms".
The Shishuo Xinyu, "New Account of Tales of the World", which contains historical anecdotes about the Eastern Jin period, mentions shishu "enumerated items" in connection with the politician Yin Hao.
When Yin Hao was dismissed and transferred to Tung-yang he read a large number of Buddhist sutras, gaining a detailed understanding of them all. It was only when he came to places where items were enumerated that he did not understand. Whenever he chanced to see a monk, he would ask about the items he had noted down, end then they would become clear.
The Shishuo Xinyu commentary of Liu Jun 劉孝標 gives examples of shishu categories such as the Four Noble Truths, Five Aggregates, Five Strengths, Seven Factors of Enlightenment, and Twelve Nidānas. Zhu Faya helped to develop geyi in an attempt to teach their Chinese students shishu-type sets of Buddhist technical terms, employing comparable lists from non-Buddhist texts.
The 4th-century Eastern Jin monastic Dao'an – mentioned above in Zhu Faya's biography about using geyi to teach Chinese Buddhists numerical lists of Sanskrit terms – was renowned as an early translator of and commentator on Buddhist scriptures. As a leader of the next generation of Chinese Buddhist teachers after Zhu Faya, Dao'an was the first recorded critic of the geyi method. His biography records that around 349, when Dao’an was living together with Sengxian 僧先 on Feilong Shan,
'an said, "The old 'categorized concepts' of the past was often at odds with Buddhist principles." "We ought to analyze carefreely ," said Sengxian. "How are we permitted to dispute our predecessors?" 'an said, "In spreading and praising the principles and doctrines, we should make them fitting and proper. When dharma-drums compete to resound, what first later?"
Following Dao'an's repudiation, the experimental geyi technique became a short-lived phenomenon that lasted for no more than a generation. Thus, Mair notes, geyi "did not have time to develop into something more elaborate or important, as is often imagined by modern interpreters."
The Eastern Jin monk Sengrui was a student of Dao'an, and became a principle translator working with Kumarajiva. Sengui's commentary to the Vimalakirti Sutra criticizes translators who tried using geyi to explain the Mahayana Buddhist Prajnaparamita "Perfection of Wisdom" sutras:
Since the Wind of Wisdom fanned eastward and the Word of the Dharma flowed forth in song, although it may be said that there were places for lecturing, the categorizing of concepts was pedantic and at odds with the original ; the Six Schools were biased and did not touch .
The Liang dynasty monk Sengyou, who wrote a biography of Kumarajiva, censured the Yuezhi translators Zhi Qian and Dharmarakṣa or Zhu Fahu for using geyi.
Since the Great Law covered the east, beginning in of Emperor Ming of the Han and passing through the Wei and the Jin , the sūtras and śāstras that were produced gradually became numerous. Yet the produced by Zhi and Zhu mostly stagnant wording and categorized concepts.
Since the geyi method originated for exegesis of numbered lists and not translation, Sengyou's criticism of geyi implies that he only vaguely understood it.
Tang dynasty Buddhist texts made some repetitive criticisms of geyi. Daoxuan mentioned geyi twice in contexts about textual obfuscation, and once stating that Dao'an "strove to extirpate the geyi of the past and to open up spiritual principles for the future". Jizang, founder of the Three Treatise School, repeats the same criticism four times: "Categorized concepts were pedantic and went against the fundament; the Six Schools were biased and off the mark".
A final Song dynasty example shows how geyi became forgotten and misunderstood. The Buddhist lexicon written by Daocheng 道誠 garbles what Daoxuan wrote about geyi. The entry on nishu 擬書 "matched writings" says:
The eminent monk Faya excelled at Buddhist and non-Buddhist studies. Many lay scholars requested that he teach them. Given that the meanings in the sutras were difficult to explain, Faya matched them with in non-Buddhist literature in order to provide instances of lively explications. This was called 'striking concepts'.
This passage not only has a typographical error of ge 挌 "strike; hit" for the ge 格 "categorize" in geyi, but also omits shishu 事數.
After analyzing all the occurrences of the "much vexed term" geyi in the entire Buddhist canon, Mair concludes that geyi was an exegetical method to cope with the Indian proclivity for numerical lists of ideas and concepts.
From its few occurrences in the Buddhist canon, it is evident that geyi was an abortive exegetical method, not a vital translation technique or essential philosophical principle. The main reason we know about geyi at all is because the celebrated Eastern Jin monk Dao'an, rightly so, criticized it as ineffective. After the meager series of texts cited earlier, there is no significant mention of geyi until the twentieth century, when it is miraculously revived by modern historians and made to play a key role in the early development of Buddhism in China.